The “lose-lose” situation in Iraq

The United States finds itself in a situation in Iraq where there are no good choices. Thanks to the Bush administration’s ignoring the deteriorating situation in Iraq since the collapse of Saddam Hussein’s regime, crime is rampant, parts of the south are being ruled by theocrats and Shiite militias, Sunni insurgents are rebelling, the open borders and chaos in the country have allowed Al Qaeda to become established, and the country is pulling itself apart in three different directions as ethnic and regional differences become more pronounced. It has been repeated over and over again that the actions of the military can only compliment political work to be successful but so far neither the Bush or Maliki governments are willing to do the political work necessary because the political work requires making unpleasant decisions.

On the other side, withdrawal may very well allow the situation to deteriorate even more as hard as that is to imagine. Iraq is already on the verge of a genocide emergency with American troops present. The security forces of Iraq are not, for the most part, trustworthy. The withdrawal of American troops may result in large scale genocide and warfare that can spread throughout the region.

Yossi Melman commentator for Haaretz writes in today’s PostGlobal:

In economic jargon Iraq is a “lose-lose” situation. In strategic and political terms it is one big mess. The question – “There are two kinds of land mines: the kind that explodes when you step on it, and the kind that explodes when you take your foot off. Which one is Iraq?” – already contains the answer. Iraq is both.

The U.S. can't win the war in Iraq. But the withdrawal of U.S. and coalition troops would not guarantee stability. On the contrary, it may only further destabilize Iraq. The risks are tremendous and the ramifications for the rest of the region are terrifying.

***
The reality that both options – to withdraw or to stay – are bad ones forces the U.S. to choose not between good or better but between bad or worse. To remain in Iraq is the worst decision possible. But improvement can be achieved only by dialogue and engagement with all the major players – above all Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Syria and, yes Iran.

The Bush administration has to acknowledge that its policies so far have failed. It has to admit that it needs Iran and Syria to neutralize the Iraqi minefields. Tehran and Damascus hold important keys to defuse the tension. Of course it will require the U.S. to be ready to pay a certain price for both countries’ cooperation, and to make concessions. In return for Syria’s consent to tighten security at its border with Iraq to end its support for Hezbollah in Lebanon, the U.S. will have to promise President Bashar al-Assad to improve relations with him, provide economic incentives and bring Israel to negotiate a peace agreement with him, with the ultimate goal of returning the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights. Such a deal is possible. It is within U.S. power. And securing a deal with Syria to help save America’s face in Iraq would not necessarily be a counterproductive move for Israel’s interests either.

As far as Iran is concerned, the chances of a deal are less promising. A deal with Iran has to be comprehensive: not only about reducing Tehran's intervention in Iraqi politics and its support for Shiite militias. The deal will have to cover Afghanistan and the most sensitive issue of all – Iran's desire to have nuclear weapons. How to achieve this after nearly thirty years of mistrust, hard feelings, bad blood, conflicting interests and distorted messages between Iran and the U.S.? Easier said than done.

And still one has to try….

The Bush administration is committed to its failed policy. Congress has taken a stand against the failed policy. However, while the Democratic majorities in Congress have made clear what they are against they have not made clear what they are for. The White House and the Congress both need to accept the shortcomings their own positions and attempt to put together a policy to at least stabilize the country as much as humanly possible. It won’t be easy but one has to try.